Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phlox Pyros · 04-30-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Because the claim is false.

Says you.

Quote:

Unsupported speculation is just that and pointing to a different textual situation and claiming a double standard does not make your case any stronger.

It points out the double standard for sure, which was my main point. However, though I do not hold to it except out of interest in arguing the case, there is stronger merit in the case of an underlying bethulah in 7:14 than even I realized. However, only those not afraid of Christianity and its claims could admit such. Can you take up a position and argue it from either side? Something tells me not....

Phlox Pyros · 04-30-2006, 10:19 AM

Let me leave off with another bit of information from the textual critic Emmanuel Tov (p.301) with respect to blindly following the most ancient physical evidence:

Quote:

Reliance on the age of documents is seemingly desirable, because the closer the document is to the time of the autograph, the more likely it is that it has preserved the wording of the autograph. In practice, however, this type of logic does not hold, since certain copyists preserved their source better than others. For example, the community which transmitted {the Masoretic text} has left the biblical text virtually unchanged for some two thousand years, whereas the Qumran scribes modernized and changed the orthography, morphology, and content of the text already in the Second Temple period within a relatively short period of textual activity. Thus 1QIsa(a), dating from the first century BCE, is further removed from the Urtext of Isaiah than a Masoretic manuscript written in the tenth century CE.

I could provide other quotes from reputable scholars in the field that show that the book of Isaiah was likely in various forms in Hebrew during the time that the LXX translated it.

You just don't want to give an honest look at the information. That is all.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I already have shown two other examples of almah being translated as parthenos. The above statement is false.

Nope, the semantic RANGE of parthenos includes virgin. That is indisputable. You apparently don't know what semantice range means.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Another interesting thing to note, is that in the Genesis case, where almah is translated parthenos. The almah is most likely a virgin.

Exactly. But in any case the semantic RANGE of almah and parthenos includes virgin. It doesn't have to, but it can. Chris doesn't seem to understand the concept of sematic range. Words can have a variety of meanings in different contexts.

The English words, girl, maiden and virgin all overlap, as to virginity, but the their ranges include other meanings outside the others.

Phlox Pyros · 04-30-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beth Phillips

With the m/מ acting as a preposition to ram/רום which means ‘on high’, we are shown that one of the lexical meanings for ‘Mariam’ is “of/from on high.”

“Son of Mary” now corresponds in proper name wordplay with the “Son of the Most High.”

I'll attempt to approach with your claim using a little more tact and respect than the moderators here...

Anyways, in most instances where the phrase <someone/thing> of the Most High is used, the underlying Hebrew for Most High is Elyon.

Can you provide references in the Hebrew Bible where Most High is something other than Elyon, more specifically <something> ram? Thanks.

Phlox Pyros · 04-30-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You {ie. Chris} apparently don't know what semantice{sic} range means.

In a bid to lighten things up a bit, I'm not sure I know what that means either.

Spanky · 04-30-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

In a bid to lighten things up a bit, I'm not sure I know what that means either.

It means you can ssssssssssssssssstttttttttttrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee etttttccccchhhh a words meaning till it fits your own veiw on what that word should mean.

P.S. you said you wanted to lighten things up.

Phlox Pyros · 04-30-2006, 12:47 PM

Here's a question for anyone interested in taking it up, and a side tanget while things cool down a bit.

In the BHS, there is a dot over the mem in almah at Isaiah 7:14. I once knew what this dot meant, but it has been a while since I sat down with the highly cryptic masoretic notes of the Hebrew Bible. I'll find out soon if no one knows, but I thought I'd ask: "What does that dot mean?"

Also, what does the Masorah Parva indicate with respect to almah? It almost appears to say the almah is found 3 times (gimmel), but what does the dalet indicate? I shouldn't stay out of the Hebrew text for so long...

Dina Noun · 04-30-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beth Phillips

Chris, you have finally convinced me of the truth of the NT message when it says:

"…do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”

Calling Chris <names> seems like something Jesus wouldn't approve of...

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
(Matthew 12:36-37)

And, gee, doesn't Jesus also say that what goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, but rather what comes out his mouth does? Oh yeah, here it is.

Quote:

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'

...

[Jesus said,] "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what make a man 'unclean':"
(Matthew 15:10-11,17-20)

Let me keep this going...

Quote:

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religioun is useless.
(James 1:26)

Beth Phillips · 04-30-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Anyways, in most instances where the phrase <someone/thing> of the Most High is used, the underlying Hebrew for Most High is Elyon.

Can you provide references in the Hebrew Bible where Most High is something other than Elyon, more specifically <something> ram? Thanks.

Phlox Pyros,

The source text of the New Testament was the Greek LXX, so whatever is in the Hebrew Bible (which was not compiled and finalized for at least six hundred years) was not an issue for the NT writers at all--and for this same reason, it should not be an issue for us either.

Trying to match the NT to the Hebrew Bible is totally anachronistic and therefore an exercise in serious frustration.

Most of the proper name wordplays that I have isolated are all bilingual using Greek and a Semitic vocabulary, but since the writers of the NT were not limited by what the later Hebrew version says, the whole of the Semitic vocabulary was open for their use.

Ram, reish-vav-mem, means "to be high, exalted." If the later translators of the Hebrew Bible chose elyon for "most high," it was a much later decision and is of no significance to the NT. The Greek word for "most high" is upistos, and one of the Semitic equivalents would be "ram." With the mem as the preposition of/from, then m-r-a-m would mean “of the Most High.” M-r-a-m is also the consonantal base of the proper name "Miriam." Thus, the presence of both in the same pericope created a proper name wordplay.

After working with this literary tool for over four years now, I have come to the conclusion that it is a total waste of time to keep trying to justify that the Greek LXX was a translation of an original Hebrew version. Historically and textually, it makes so sense whatsoever. The whole idea of doing so is based upon religious assumption/apologetics--not historical evidence.

When you start with the Greek as the primary source text for both canons of scripture, then a lot of these problems aren't problems anymore! So, try starting with the Greek and then work into the Hebrew version: it is much simpler (and a lot less frustrating) that way. It also takes a great deal of the "guesswork" out of it! In other words, the Hebrew MT version then becomes one of the ways in which the LXX can be translated into Semitic!

I know my theory is very radical Phlox...unacceptable by biblical literalists, and unacknowledged by academics. One day, however, that will not be the case! So thanks for at least hearing me out and remember me when biblical scholarship does a 180 in this direction!!

~Beth

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2006, 12:47 PM	#98
Phlox Pyros Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 7th Heaven Posts: 406	Here's a question for anyone interested in taking it up, and a side tanget while things cool down a bit. In the BHS, there is a dot over the mem in almah at Isaiah 7:14. I once knew what this dot meant, but it has been a while since I sat down with the highly cryptic masoretic notes of the Hebrew Bible. I'll find out soon if no one knows, but I thought I'd ask: "What does that dot mean?" Also, what does the Masorah Parva indicate with respect to almah? It almost appears to say the almah is found 3 times (gimmel), but what does the dalet indicate? I shouldn't stay out of the Hebrew text for so long...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.